I vehemently dislike the tax cut because it is regressive and adds 1.5 trillion to the deficit according to the GAO.

I agree that the deficit is a horrible thing and can't continue. But thinking more taxes will fix it doesn't make sense. Spending cuts are what's needed, along with a growing economy so actual total revenue will be higher.

Apparently he's not a socialist. I love the analysis of male/female differences. Men think systematically and women think emotionally and libertarians are 80% male. I'm a female libertarian and I definitely think systematically. Explains why I prefer male company over female company and why I became an engineer.

Like the last two posts, I was not for Trump at first either. I didn't vote for him in the primary. But after he won the primary he started winning me over with the emails asking for my opinion, then the Contract with the American voter, which included stuff I had said in my replies to him (not that it was there because I'd asked for it, but because no doubt thousands others had replied the same).

I also loved the way he "trash talked" (as I call it, a gamer term) - the bluntness that the left and MSM call "racist" I saw as high time somebody said it, for example the criminal illegals. MS-13 is a problem and everyone tip toes around it for PC but not Trump, he calls them out. And there is NOTHING racist about anything he said on that subject. There is nothing racist about wanting criminal illegals out of our country. It was so refreshing to hear a presidential candidate speak so aggressively toward these threats to our country, I'm sick of the conciliatory apologetic crap on subjects like that.

And maybe most of all, I started rooting for him when the Republican candidates failed to support him, which I took as a betrayal after I had supported them over Trump prior to the primary.  I needed them to do anything to defeat Hillary, if they truly cared about the country. Withdrawing support from Trump I saw as supporting Hillary and that was unforgivable. So it threw me even more toward Trump and away from establishment Republicans.

So I pulled the lever for Trump, more than anything to defeat Hillary, but also heartened by what he promised, but I was not holding my breath that he'd actually keep his promises. I expected anything from Hitler level evil, to a bumbling incompetent, to an "adequate" President.  I didn't expect him to hold firm to his promises to the extent he has.  He is not perfect, and I never took his over-the-top statements literally, I understood them as starting points for negotiation, or just trash talk. But he has surpassed my expectations in what he's actually accomplished.

Of course media portrayals of the POTUS have an effect, how could they not? But even though the media has had a left-leaning bias for decades, some Republican presidents (e.g. both Bushes but especially 41) have had high or even very high approval ratings at this point in their presidencies, and some Democratic presidents (e.g. Clinton, Obama) have had approval ratings as low as Trump's. (Source: Gallup) So I don't think you can attribute it all to media bias.

I'll admit that the msm have gone overboard in the way they scrutinize Trump, more so than previous presidents. It's really telling that even PBS and NPR spend a lot of airtime speculating on whether Cohen and Manafort will implicate Trump in criminal wrongdoing. Enough already! But beyond that, Trump's quirks and actions that draw some of that negative attention are real - the incessant tweeting, tweets that sometimes contradict statements by his Cabinet members, the deference to Putin in Helsinki - all real.

Don't you think some of that might be partly to blame for Trump's low approval ratings?

The tweeting is a double edge sword. Any time anyone says any words, they can be twisted out of context or used to contradict something they said earlier (because no one is 100% consistent all the time or has perfect memory).  But if he didn't tweet at all, I think the MSM would be just as brutal, they'd find other ways.  Trump does however give them ammunition.

On the other hand, his tweets allow him to completely bypass the MSM and communicate directly with us the People. No other President in history has ever done that. The technology allows it and Trump is the first to fully take advantage of it. This means the MSM has lost a great deal of its power to control "truth".

In Trump's debates, and in his emails and tweets during the campaign, he bypassed the usual channels which was one of the things I liked about him and one reason I voted for him. I had long since lost trust in the MSM - Trump's wholesale contempt of them and dismissal of them and refusal to rely on them was something no other candidate did, which to my mind said, the rest of them are still allowing MSM to control thought, and Trump isn't. That is very new and refreshing. MSM has no credibility. So any politician not bypassing them now is suspect in my mind. I think Trump might have therefore changed the game permanently. It's one of the reasons MSM is so extremely angry, they know they've lost a great deal of power and they are not going to get it back, unless the left takes over by violent coup and censors the internet like North Korea.  That's the only game they have left at this point. And that's unlikely as long as we avoid gun confiscation. But I bet they will try.

The left and the media are now in full collective psychopathic rage. If there is no such term as collective psychopathy there needs to be and I'm inventing it right now.

I am REALLY reluctant to jump in the middle of this. And have managed to refrain until today. But curiosity is getting the bettter of my good judgment. I in no way at all thought of Becky's Osh thread an example of the kind of women that guy is railing against. Whatsoever. Am having trouble connecting those dots, so I tried to go reread that thread but can't find it. Becky did you delete it? (Do we even have the power to delete threads?) From memory all I can think of is that Becky was concerned for his safety or something and asking for help in dealing with those feelings. Those feelings are in no way invalid but I didn't see her trying to force him not to go. I recall saying, buy plenty of life insurance on him then let him do what he wants. But that's got limits. I would not for example "let" my husband go camping on a grizzly bear trail. (Timothy Treadwell). If my man insisted on that, I would find another man.

As in all things there is a reasonable zone. What I love about this guy's video is he is pushing back against extremist feminist stupidity. But his own position could become extremist in the reverse. Some of these guys in the growing Mansphere are going too far in the other direction. It's actually biologically normal for females to want males to take the dangerous risks for them in jobs and defense for example. Because females, evolutionarily, are continually vulnerable with pregnancies and nursing young. Birth control has changed that drastically but reliable birth control has only been around barely a century. It's going to take millennia for our instincts to catch up.

This particular guy does not seem to be saying he minds taking the dangers for his woman, on the contrary, he is saying that what he minds is women berating him for it, for being his macho daredevil self which is his biological program. And not appreciating men for this, and most of all he is saying the romcoms nurture a complete fantasy about it; that men should do these thing for the woman alone rather than for the family unit in protecting his own issue. Big difference.

And he is saying men should rightly receive more financial compensation for it (not just danger but simply working more and being more productive) because that is the correct supply-demand price point, where as these feminists want to take his rightly earned money and give it to them for what - just because they are female. And that is to elevate them to a higher value than a man - a thing very unnatural and wrong. These feminists don't want equality, they want to oppress men.

Romcoms might be creating unrealistic expectations and causing problems when we have to deal with real life, where "love" doesn't carry us happily through a lifetime of living under each other's feet, and I dare say women buy it more readily than do men. This is a real problem as we are swimming in fiction - not just romcoms- another pet peeve I have is the female physically combatting a larger male as if well matched in skill and strength, in fiction and video games. This irks me no end it has become so pervasive that young women nowadays go around claiming they don't need any protecting, as if they actually believe they could defeat a male assailant in a hand to hand struggle. That mindless stupidity only encourages further erosion of the 2nd Amendment. Women in total denial of their own weakness relative to men, thoughtlessly implanted into their subconscious by shows and video games depicting females with strength stats indistinguishable from males'. Nuts.

I might be getting off track so but yeah I never saw Becky as one of these fruitcakes. It is true that women have an overall tendency toward physical caution greater than men, on average, and that translates to exerting some pressure on their men not to do things too risky but I see that as biologically normal and not a problem within bounds, and I didn't sense Becky going out of reasonable bounds. And like I said, women actually want and like their men to be macho and take risks... to a point. Like many things in marriage you come to a compromise. Marriages with either the man or the woman wielding all the power are problematic, it works both ways.

The problem with the feminists is that they are hypocrites. They stop their men from doing the things men want to do (take risks and hence advance technology, kill food or fight enemies) while simultaneously expecting men to automatically do all these things on demand, and berating them for it at the same time. Feminists view men as despicable slaves to be used but also despised for the very traits they're being exploited for. This is a minority of bitter women that truly feel this way but their ideas are brainwashing the young generations. Unless I'm missing something I don't see Becky fitting either of those profiles??

Which brings up a point I thought about earlier, listening to Rush discuss this - if Cohen rolled over and pled guilty to a crime which is not really a crime, in order to get a slap on the wrist for his very real tax evasion - doesn't this just go further to if not exonerate, at least give defense, to Trump on the same point? It's not a crime to do what Trump did, he can't be charged for it, and ultimately Cohen can't be sentenced for it because it's not a crime. So Cohen gets off light on the tax evasion while appearing to make Trump look guilty of a crime that isn't a crime, and everybody walks away with a slap on the wrist. Did Cohen do this intentionally to screw Mueller? It sure seems to me that's the upshot here...

Yeah this was my take on it too (no I'm not that Rush).  The MSM and the left must be salivating thinking they've finally got Trump but it's nothing but mist, there is no "there" there.  It's just a continuation of what they've been doing ever since the election, a lot of mindless thrashing trying to overthrow the result they cannot accept.